[00:00:01]
WITH MR. ROGERS.[Planning Commission Regular Meeting on April 9, 2025.]
UM, MOVE TO ADOPTION OF, OF THE AGENDA.DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONS OR SUBTRACTIONS TO THE AGENDA? I MOVE.
I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS WRITTEN.
WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE MINUTES OF WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12TH, 2025.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS I A MOTION TO ADOPT AS WRITTEN? I MOVE THE, WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN.
ALRIGHT, DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
WE CAN GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND MOVE TO OLD BUSINESS.
WE CAN MOVE TO THE CONTINUED, I'M SORRY.
I READ CONTINUED BRIEFING OF INITIATING RESOLUTION TO THE AMENDMENT.
DEFINITIONS OF HEIGHT AND CLARITY METHOD OF MEASURING HEIGHT.
UM, SO AGAIN, THESE ARE THE TWO ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS THAT I BRIEFED YOU ON LAST MONTH.
SO A LOT OF THE INFORMATION IS THE SAME WITH JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION TO GO WITH IT.
UM, FOCUSED ON A COUPLE OF THINGS.
SO, UH, YOU SEEN THIS SLIDE LAST MONTH.
BOTH OF THESE RESOLUTIONS WERE GIVEN OR HANDED DOWN FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT THEIR JANUARY 15TH MEETING.
UM, AGAIN, THIS IS TO ONE, CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF BUILDING HEIGHT OF AND TO ALSO ADD A DEFINITION AND METHOD OF CALCULATING SIGN AREA IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
BOTH OF THESE ARE COMING FROM CHAPTER 1 0 6, TITLED ZONING, UM, FOR THE CLARIFYING OF BUILDING HEIGHT OF, AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A MEASURE TWO POINT, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE A STOPPING POINT.
AND FOR THE SECOND ONE, WE WANT TO RIGHT SIZE THE AMOUNT OF SIGN AREA IN AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND, UM, PROVIDE A METHOD OF CALCULATING SIGN AREA WHERE NONE CURRENTLY EXISTS.
AND WE'RE GONNA START WITH THE DEFINITION OF BUILDING HEIGHT OF, AGAIN, WE ONLY HAVE A MEASURE TWO POINTS.
SO STAFF HAS BEEN MEASURING TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE ROOF.
THIS HAS LED TO SOME INCONSISTENT INTERPRETATIONS, UM, CONFUSION AMONGST NOT JUST STAFF, BUT ALSO, UM, THE DEVELOPERS OR THE APPLICANT BUILDERS NOT KNOWING WHERE THAT STOP POINT SHOULD BE.
UM, IF SOMEONE IS BUILDING IN DELAWARE OR IF THEY'RE BUILDING IN NORTH HAMPTON COUNTY AND THOSE PLACES HAVE A STOP POINT, THEN THEY'RE GONNA DO WHAT THEY'RE USED TO DOING.
AND WE DO HAVE SEVERAL WHO WILL TURN IN SOMETHING AND WE HAVE TO SEND IT BACK FOR RESUBMITTAL BECAUSE THEY'RE STARTING AT GRAY, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE ROOF, WHICH IS CURRENT STAFF INTERPRETATION.
SO WE NEED SOMETHING IN THE CODE THAT SAYS, THIS IS WHERE THE STOPPING POINT IS WHEN WE HAVE TO, UM, TURN THESE APPLICANTS DOWN OR SEND IT BACK FOR RESUBMITTAL, DEPENDING ON HOW THAT PLAN WAS DRAWN UP, IF IT WAS DONE BY AN ENGINEER, ARCHITECT, UM, WHAT HAVE YOU, THAT'S MORE MONEY OUT OF THE APPLICANT'S POCKET.
UM, THERE'S MORE TIME, UH, IN THAT PROCESS BEING ADDED, TRYING TO GET THOSE DRAWINGS REDONE, RESUBMITTED, AND THEN PUT BACK IN FOR STAFF REVIEW.
SO THIS IS A TABLE SHOWING WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY AND WHAT WE ARE OUR PROPOSED ADDITIONS.
SO RIGHT NOW, THE STARTING POINT IS AVERAGE GRADE ALONG THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
WE DON'T PLAN TO CHANGE THAT END POINT.
AND THESE ARE OUR PROPOSALS FOR A FLAT ROOF.
THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE ROOF MANED ROOF WOULD BE AT THE DECK LINE.
AND THEN, UH, MAIN LEVEL BETWEEN THE EAVES AND THE RIDGE FOR GABLE HIP CONE GAM, OR A SHED.
AGAIN, RIGHT NOW INTERPRETATION IS INCONSISTENT WITH LEADS TO SOME DELAYS.
SO WITH THESE PROPOSED ADDITIONS, IT WILL REDUCE THE VARIANCE REQUESTS AND HAVE MORE CONSISTENT REVIEWS BEING DONE.
UM, THIS IS THE IMAGE I SHOWED LAST AT LAST MONTH'S MEETING.
[00:05:01]
AND JUST IN CASE THIS IS A LITTLE CONFUSING, UM, LEE DID DO SOME NEW ONES FOR US THAT, UH, I THINK KIND OF SPEAK MORE TO MACK COUNTY AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.SO FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS WE ARE PROPOSING BETWEEN THE EVE AND THE RIDGE.
SO WITH THIS ONE, THAT POINT WOULD BE 30 FEET, FIVE AND 30 FEET AND A HALF.
SO THEY WOULD BE, UM, OOPS, WHAT'S THE ONE THING? SO THIS ONE WOULD BE FINE ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSAL.
AND, AND THEN I'M SORRY, I'M GONNA START OVER BECAUSE I JUST EXPLAINED THAT WRONG AFTER LOOKING AT IT AGAIN.
SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING, OUR MAX OVERALL HEIGHT WILL BE 45.
WE ARE NOT TRYING TO INCREASE ANY HEIGHT LIMITS FOR OUR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
SO 45 IS STILL GOING TO BE THE MAXIMUM OVERALL HEIGHT.
SO FOR ALL OF THESE, NONE OF THESE ARE OVER 45 FEET AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO, UM, BETWEEN THE EVE AND UM, THE ROOFTOP.
SO THAT WOULD BE THESE, THE MIDDLE HERE.
AND BEING THAT IT'S 37 FEET, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE NECESSARY SETBACKS TO GO OVER THAT AMOUNT.
THIS ONE HERE, THEY'RE AT 32, WHICH IS UNDER THE 35 FEET, AND THEIR OVERALL IS 35.
SO THEY WOULD STILL BE IN COMPLIANCE.
YOU WANNA ASK A QUESTION? YOU WANNA ASK YOUR QUESTION NOW? YOU SURE.
SO THE OVERALL IS 35, UNLESS YOU WANNA DO A SETBACK TO 45.
SO THE OVERALL HEIGHT THAT NO ONE CAN GO OVER RIGHT IS 45 FEET.
BUT IF AT THE MIDPOINT THEY ARE OVER 35, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE NECESSARY SETBACKS.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, THIS ONE AT 32 WOULD BE FINE.
THEY DON'T NEED TO HAVE ANY NECESSARY SETBACKS BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDER THE 35.
THIS FIRST ONE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE NECESSARY SETBACKS BECAUSE THEY'RE OVER 35 AT THE MIDPOINT.
SO IN A BUILDING THAT HAS ALL THREE OF THOSE HEIGHTS IN ONE BUILDING, WHICH ONE WOULD WE USE? SO THESE ARE JUST DIFFERENT EXAMPLES OF WHAT WE COULD GET INTO REVIEW.
SO THIS FIRST ONE, I FEEL LIKE IS THE BEST EXAMPLE, THE MIDPOINT, WHICH IS WHERE WE WOULD LIKE TO, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE HIGHEST POINT.
SO AT 37, THESE FOLKS WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THE NECESSARY SETBACKS BECAUSE THEY'RE OVER 35, BUT OVERALL THEY ARE NOT GOING OVER THE MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE OF 45 FEET.
ON A BUILDING THAT HAS DIFFERENT ROOF LEVELS OF ROOF LINES AND AND WHICH ONE ARE WE GOING TO CHOOSE? THE HIGHEST? THE HIGHEST ONE.
SO IT WOULD BE THE MIDPOINT OF THE HIGHEST ROOF.
WHY DID YOU, IF I MAY ASK, WHY DID YOU PULL THE MIDPOINT RATHER THAN THE HEIGHT? THE ACTUAL HEIGHT? UM, FOR EXAMPLE, THE HOME ZONE CAPTAIN'S IN CAPTAIN'S CODE, SOME OF THOSE ARE ON PILINGS.
AND SO THEY ARE, THEY MEET THE CODE OTHER THAN THE HEIGHT.
AND THAT DIFFERENCE COULD BE MAYBE ONE FOOT.
SO WE ARE TELLING THEM THAT THEY HAVE TO RESUBMIT OR THEY HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR DESIGN FOR THAT ONE FOOT.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, NO, I DON'T THINK, WELL, I DON'T THINK THESE MATCH THAT EXAMPLE, BUT I, IT'S TO GIVE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO RESIDENTS AND TO SOME OF THE BUILDERS SO THAT THEIR SUBMITTALS AREN'T BEING DENIED FOR MAYBE A ONE FOOT INDIFFERENCE, UHHUH,
SO, UH, BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE FINDING, ESPECIALLY IN PLACES LIKE CAPTAINS COVE AND CERTAIN HOAS IS THEIR HOAS OR THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
[00:10:01]
COMMITTEES WILL, FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY'LL WRITE VARIANCE ON THEIR, ON THEIR, UH, ON THEIR PLAN REVIEWS.WE WOULD LIKE FOR THE HOAS TO REVIEW THE PLANS FIRST, BUT WE ALWAYS HAVE A, WE SEE A LOT OF THOSE COME IN AT A HEIGHT BETWEEN 35 AND 40 FEET.
SOME OF THEM WE SEE COMING IN, IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET.
BUT WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO, AS CICE WAS EXPLAINING, WAS TURN SOMEBODY AWAY BECAUSE THEIR, BECAUSE THEIR, UH, THEIR HEIGHT MAY, MAY END UP MEASURING UP TO 37 FEET OR 38 FEET.
WE SEE SEVERAL OF THOSE, OR WE HAVE SEEN SEVERAL OF THOSE IN THE PAST, SINCE I GOT HERE, WE HAVE BEEN MEASURING TWO, THE OVERALL HEIGHT.
IT'S NOT SPECIFIED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHERE WE MEASURE TWO, BUT OF COURSE WE HAVE TO INTERPRET THAT IF THERE'S NO PLACE TO MEASURE TWO, WE WILL SAY TO THE OVERALL HEIGHT, BUT THAT WOULD PRECLUDE APPROVAL OF ANYTHING OVER 35 FEET.
YOU KNOW, IF THE OVERALL HEIGHT IS 36, 37, 40 FEET, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO JUST OUTRIGHT DENY THAT.
BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENCE OF ANYWHERE FROM A FEW INCHES TO SAY FIVE FEET, THEY'RE NOT GONNA GET ANY EXTRA FLOOR AREA OUT OF THAT.
SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY WHERE IT REALLY WOULDN'T, UH, NEG WHERE IT WOULD NOT, UM, NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE, SO YOU'RE TRYING TO ALLOW FOR PILINGS AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.
THOSE, THOSE, THAT WOULD BE JUST ONE OF SEVERAL INSTANCES.
YOU KNOW, MAYBE SOMEBODY WANTS TO HAVE A THREE STORY HOUSE AND IT WOULD END UP BEING 37, 38 FEET.
OUR BUILDING INSPECTORS ARE SAYING ON AVERAGE UP THE, THE, THE HEIGHT OF A, OF ONE SINGLE FLOOR IS ABOUT NINE TO 10 FEET.
THESE BLOCKS THAT YOU SEE HERE ARE 10 FOOT BLOCKS.
SO THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GETTING THE, UH, ESSENTIALLY THE 30 FOOT HEIGHT UP TO THE EVE.
AND OF COURSE WE'RE INTERESTED IN WHAT, WHAT EXTRA HEIGHT THAT ROOF IS GONNA PUT ON.
SO WE'RE BASICALLY TRYING TO, AGAIN, PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY THERE.
AND THOSE NUMBERS ARE, REGARDLESS OF THE PITCH, THOSE NUMBERS ARE REGARDLESS OF THE PITCH.
SO THERE ARE, AND, UH, AND, AND SEAN TS UH, UH, UH, IF, IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE LAST SLIDE, YOU KNOW, UM, THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT KINDS OF ROOFS.
THIS IS ONLY FOUR OF THE, OF THE, YOU KNOW, 25, 30 DIFFERENT KINDS OF ROOFS.
SO, UH, BUT THESE ARE THE MOST COMMON ONES.
BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, UH, COMMISSIONER GALE, DEFINITELY IT, IT WOULD BE REGARDLESS OF THE ROOF PITCH MM-HMM
SO IF WE GO BACK TO THE, TO THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THESE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT ROOF PITCHES.
BUT WHAT WE TRIED TO EXPLAIN HERE IN THE FAR RIGHT EXAMPLE, THAT IS AN OVERALL HEIGHT OF, UM, OF, UH, UH, 35 FEET.
IN THE MIDDLE EXAMPLE, THE OVERALL HEIGHT IS 40 FEET.
WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO APPROVE THAT ONE, BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE ALL STILL THREE STORY BUILDINGS.
IN THE FAR LEFT EXAMPLE, THE OVERALL HEIGHT IS 45 FEET.
BUT YOU CAN SEE THE MIDPOINT, WELL, MAYBE YOU CAN'T SEE IT BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF SMALL, BUT IF WE COULD ZOOM IN ON THAT LEFT ONE, YOU WOULD SEE THAT THE OVERALL HEIGHT IS 37 FEET.
IN THAT EXAMPLE, ANYTHING OVER 35 FEET WOULD REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL TWO FEET OF SETBACK FOR, SO FOR EVERY ADDITIONAL HEIGHT THAT YOU ARE ABOVE THE MAXIMUM, YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL FOOT OF SETBACK.
SO, SO WITH THAT, THEN THEY COULD GET THE APPROVAL WITH THE SETBACK? YES.
AND WHY WOULD YOU GO TO A SUCH A STEEP ROOF? USUALLY THOSE ARE SNOW LOAD, RIGHT? BASED ON SNOW LOAD.
'CAUSE THEY'RE PRETTY, THEY'RE PRETTY 12, 12 PITCH IS JUST PRETTY RIGHT.
THIS, THIS, THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE.
YOU KNOW, WE GET ALL KINDS OF ROOF PITCHES.
DID DID YOU, I'M TURN IT BACK OVER TO, DID YOU SAY THAT NUMBER TWO, YOU COULD NOT APPROVE? WE COULD NOT APPROVE TODAY BECAUSE THE, BECAUSE THE OVERALL HEIGHT IS 40 FEET, BUT YOU COULD APPROVE THE OVERALL HEIGHT OF 45 FEET ON THE FIRST ONE.
SO FOR, FOR THESE TWO, WE COULD, IF THEY HAD, FOR INSTANCE, IN THE, IN THE, THE THE MIDDLE EXAMPLE, AN ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET, THEY WOULD NEED FIVE FEET OF ADDITIONAL SETBACK ON, UH, ON BOTH SIDES.
TO GET THAT EXTRA FIVE FEET OF HEIGHT THAT'S ABOVE 35.
FOR THE 45 FOOT EXAMPLE, THEY NEED AN EXTRA 10 FEET, FOR EXAMPLE.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE, WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY,
[00:15:03]
LONG AS YOU GUYS UNDERSTANDLIKE WE GOT DOWN IN FLORIDA ON SOME OF THOSE REALLY VERY, VERY NICE LOTS.
THEY'VE GOT BUILDINGS THAT ARE 45, 50 FEET TALL AND THEY'RE RIGHT JAMMED UP NEXT TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID.
'CAUSE MOST OF THE ONES IN FLORIDA THAT I SEE HAVE THE LOWER ROOF.
YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE SNOW LOAD OBVIOUSLY DOWN THERE.
ALRIGHT, SO SOME OTHER ISSUES THAT WE HAVE GOING ON, UH, THAT ARE RELATED TO HEIGHT IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR, UM, OUR ASSESS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
RIGHT NOW IT SAYS, UM, MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 12 FEET OR ONE STORY.
SO WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE ONE STORY AND JUST DO 12 FEET BECAUSE ONE STORY COULD BE ANYTHING.
UM, ALSO IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, UM, RIGHT NOW THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 35 SQUARE FEET AND SOMEONE COULD GO TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, WHICH IN THIS CASE WOULD BE LEE, UM, TO GAIN ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.
SO WHAT WE ARE, WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED TO DO IS JUST HAVE THAT MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND ELIMINATE SOMEONE BEING ABLE TO GO TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO GET ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AND THE INCREASED HEIGHT.
UM, MUST NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE ADVERSE IMPACT ON A BUDDING PROPERTIES, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO GO TO THE, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO, UH, GET THAT AT.
SO OUT OF ALL OF THIS, THESE ARE, ARE THE END GOALS FOR THIS.
UM, AGAIN, STAFF IS NOT TRYING TO INCREASE THE OVERALL HEIGHT.
THE MAX OVERALL HEIGHT WILL STILL WILL REMAIN AT 45 FEET.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO GO OVER THAT.
UH, WE WANT TO IMPROVE CONSISTENCY, REDUCE NEED FOR VARIANCES, SIMPLIFY THE REVIEW PROCESS, PROMOTE FAIRNESS AND, UM, CONSISTENCY OVERALL IN ALL OUR ZONING DISTRICTS.
IF ANY, IF NO ONE WANTS TO ASK ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE, I'LL MOVE ON TO THE DEFINITION AND METHOD OF CALCULATING SIGN AREA.
POND ON, ON THE BOTTOM IT SAYS PAGE 13, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT HEIGHT REGULATIONS.
IT WAS IN THE PACKAGE SLIDE ONE THAT, UM, IT'S UNDER AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT A AND YOU SAID PAGE 13? YEAH.
I HAVEN'T READ ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THE MAIN STRUCTURE IN HEIGHT.
I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WOULD WORK FOR AG DISTRICT.
AND WE'RE GOING TO NUMBER FOUR, NUMBER 13.
NUMBER FOUR, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE MORE NO ACCESSORY BUILDING, WHICH IS WITHIN 10 FEET OF ANY LOT LINE SHALL BE MORE THAN 12 FEET HIGH.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE READING? YEAH.
AND THEN IT SAYS ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE LESS THAN THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND HEIGHT.
SO IF YOUR MAIN STRUCTURE IS YOUR RANCH STYLE HOME ON A FARM AND YOU BUILD A BARN OUT BACK, THAT'S GONNA BE ABOVE A RANCH STYLE.
I DON'T SEE THAT IT WAS IN THE, I DON'T SEE IT EITHER.
IT WASN'T ON THE HANDOUT TODAY, BUT IT WAS ON THE, THE HANDOUT THAT I GOT IN MY PAMPHLET.
YOU'RE, UM, NUMBER FOUR UNDER SECTION 1 0 6 84.
IS THAT THE 1 1 0 6 59 6 9 READ? SHE SAID, THIS IS WHAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT.
SHE READ, OH, MAYBE IT'S CHANGED SINCE I'VE GOT RIGHT HERE.
YEAH, I SEE WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT RIGHT THERE.
ALL ACCESSORY BUILDING STRUCTURE SHALL BE LESS THAN THE MAIN ONE OF 6 89.
WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS YOU PUT A BAR BEHIND HOUSE.
IF THE FARMER HAS A W RANCH STYLE HOME, I WONDER WHY THAT'S DIFFERENT.
THAT LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING WE COULD PROBABLY
[00:20:01]
DISCUSS WITH JAN, BUT, UM, ESPECIALLY FOR THE AG DISTRICT, I KNOW IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, THAT'S HOW IT IS AND THAT'S A RED LINE AND RESIDENTIAL ALSO THAT YOU GUYS ADDED AND THAT IS ON PAGE.UM, SO WITH REGARDS TO THE AG EXAMPLE THAT YOU JUST INQUIRED ABOUT, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY A, UM, UH, UM, A REASONABLE RIGHT, A REASONABLE THING.
AND WE CAN DEFINITELY MAKE SOME EXCEPTIONS FOR THAT.
UH, THERE ARE OTHER PLACES IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHERE WE WOULD MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR THINGS LIKE CHIMNEYS, FLUES, UH, UM, BERY ANTENNAS, THAT KIND OF STUFF.
AND WE, WE, WE DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IN AN AGRICULTURAL SETTING YOU WOULD HAVE THINGS LIKE GRAIN SILOS OR CONVEYOR BELTS OR SOMETHING THAT MIGHT EXCEED.
SO, UH, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO NOT, WE DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO RUN AFOUL OF.
SO IF, IF WE, UH, IF WE FIND IN THE ORDINANCE ELSEWHERE THAT IT'S NOT, UH, THAT, THAT IT'S NOT CALLED FOR OR THAT IT'S NOT ALLOWED FOR, WE CAN DEFINITELY INCLUDE SOME, UH, SOME EXCEPTIONS FOR, UH, FOR CUSTOMARY AGRICULTURAL, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, STRUCTURES, IF YOU WILL, OR REVIEW IN A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
WELL, UM, WE DON'T WANT TO GET INTO, WE, WE TRY NOT TO GET INTO A REVIEW ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, BECAUSE THEN THAT WOULD ACTUALLY INCREASE OUR WORKLOAD
BUT, UM, BUT WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME, UH, THERE, THERE ARE SOME, UH, INSTANCES IN AN AGRICULTURAL SETTING OH.
WHERE THERE, WHERE THERE MAY BE ACCESSORIES, THEY'RE LIKE FARM RELATED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
THE INTENT BEHIND NUMBER FOUR HERE IS WITH REGARDS TO ANY, ANY RESIDENTIAL TYPE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, LIKE, UH, LIKE SHEDS.
BUT IF SOMEONE IS ZONED AG AND ALL THEY HAVE ON THEIR HOUSE IS A, IS A, UM, UH, IS A RANCH STYLE HOUSE OR A HOUSE, THEN THE REASON WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR A 12 FOOT MAXIMUM IS FOR THOSE KINDS OF STRUCTURES.
SO WE WILL DEFINITELY THROW IN THE HOPPER THE, UH, THE, THE SITUATION THAT YOU BROUGHT UP MADAM CHAIR, IN TERMS OF THE, UM, IN TERMS OF THE AGRICULTURAL SETTING, THE THINGS LIKE THE GRAIN SILOS OR THE TALL BARNS, WHICH ARE, WHICH ONE MIGHT THINK IS AN ACCESSORY BUILDING.
BUT, UH, WE, WE DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO RUN A FOUL OF AND CREATE ANY ADDITIONAL, UM, REGULATION WHEN IT COMES TO THE AG STRUCTURES THEMSELVES.
SO IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA MM-HMM
LET'S SAY I'M A TRUCK DRIVER AND I WANT A PICTURE, A LARGE BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE MY TRUCK.
I COULDN'T DO THAT THEN IF YOU, NOT, UNLESS YOUR TRUCK IS UNDER 12 FEET TALL AND, AND THAT AND THAT ROOF CLEARANCE ABOUT SOME OF THE BUILDINGS THEY BUILD FOR TRUCKS TO WORK ON TRUCKS MM-HMM
SO, AND IF, IF YOU LIVED IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, THEN THAT WOULD, UH, NOT ALLOW THIS REGULATION WOULD PRECLUDE THAT.
HOW WOULD YOU GET AROUND THAT? THEY'D HAVE TO COME AND GET A VARIANCE.
SO ARE YOU GUYS TAKING OUT THIS, UH, RED LINE OF ALL ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE LESS THAN THE MAIN STRUCTURE ON AG
IF WE CAN MAKE SENSE OF THE OTHER, YOU KNOW, OF THE OTHER SITUATION.
AGAIN, NUMBER FOUR WAS WRITTEN TO ADDRESS RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, NOT AGRICULTURAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
SO I HAVE A RANCH STYLE HOUSE AND I HAVE A 12 FOOT OR MORE CARPORT FOR MY CAMPER THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED BECAUSE I'M NOT A FARMER.
NOW WE CAN ALWAYS CHANGE THAT 12 FEET TOO.
BUT WE, WE CARRY THAT 12 FEET OVER FROM THE EXISTING CODE AND WE JUST WANTED TO, TO, UH, INSERT THAT NUMBER IN ALL OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS SO THAT IT'S ACTUALLY CLEAR BECAUSE IN SOME INSTANCES IT SAYS ONE STORY OR 12 FEET.
ASHANTI SAID, YOU KNOW, ONE STORY COULD EXCEED 12 FEET WE'RE US WE'RE, WE'RE ACCUSTOMED TO SEEING AN ACTUAL DIMENSION THERE AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING THAT COULD BE INTERPRETED AS VARIABLE.
SO IF I WANTED TO BUILD A BARN, I COULDN'T BE WITH THIS, WITH THIS, YOU WOULD NEED TO FILL OUT AN APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE.
UM, AND WHAT I WILL ALSO DO MM-HMM
IS I WILL MAKE SURE THAT I, WE HAVE THE
[00:25:01]
CORRECT VERSION JUST IN CASE WHAT YOUR ISSUE IS HAS ALREADY BEEN, UM, HANDLED OR TAKEN CARE OF.BUT AGAIN, UM, THE 12 FEET IS MORE OF RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORIES.
UM, WE CAN KEEP THAT, BUT I MEAN, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE MAKING SOMEBODY WHO MAY BE A FARMER GO THROUGH A LOT OF HOOPS WHEN IT'S AG AND THAT'S CONCEPT EXCEPTIONS.
SO WE'LL GET BACK TO THAT ONE.
DO WE NEED TO SPECIFY THAT A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED ARE FOR ANY EXCEPTIONS IN THE DOCUMENTATION? NO.
AND TO GET A VARIANCE, YOU WOULD'VE TO GO TO BOARD ZONING APPEALS.
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT IT, GAIL? AND YOU'RE A FARMER? WELL, I BUILT THE, I BUILT A GRAIN HANDLING FACILITY WITH A HUNDRED FOOT ELEVATOR.
AND WHEN I CHECKED THEM, OF COURSE RICH MORRISON WAS IN THEN AND, AND THERE WAS NO ISSUE REGARDING DOING THAT.
WE, WE FILED A, A BUILDING PERMIT AND THAT WAS IT.
SO THAT COULD HAVE BEEN UNDER SOME TYPE OF AG EXEMPTION.
IT WAS, BUT UM, I'LL SAY TO THAT, YOU KNOW, NEITHER LEE OR OUR, HE WAS HERE THEN, SO WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAY, UM, WHAT, WHY THAT STAFF MAY HAVE WENT THAT ROUTE, BUT I'M GONNA ASSUME IT WAS AN AG EXEMPTION.
BUT, UM, WE CAN GET WITH JAN, WE CAN, UH, LOOK INTO SOME OTHER OPTIONS AND COME BACK WITH OKAY.
SOMETHING FOR YOU NEXT MONTH ON THAT.
WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN HERE? IN, IN, IN THE, IN THE PAST I'VE BUILT LARGE BUILDINGS AND THERE WAS NO ISSUES EVER FOR AG.
BUT YEAH, I'M GONNA ASSUME IT WAS THE AG AG EXEMPTION.
SO FOR YOU TO GET YOUR CARPORT PUT IN, NOW WHEN WE CHANGED THIS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO RIGHT GO BEFORE THE BZA.
IT HAS TO BE ANOTHER $500 COST, ANOTHER 500 BUCKS AND I THAT IT'S ALL ABOUT THE REVENUE TO THE COUNTY
NOW, NOW YOU'RE TOO SIMPLE WITH, WITH REGARDS TO THE AGRICULTURAL SETTING.
THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE TO, THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE TO NOTE, OR THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT'S A WORKING FARM FOR THOSE, YOU KNOW, FOR THOSE SILOS AND FOR THOSE OTHER THINGS.
BUT IF IT'S A, IF IT'S RESIDENTIAL AND IF IT'S RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE AND THERE'S NO WORKING FARM, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE ARE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO CONTROL IS, OR WE'RE TRYING TO CLARIFY REALLY IS, YOU KNOW, REMOVING THE VARIABLE NATURE OF WHAT ONE STORY COULD BE VERSUS PUTTING IN AN ACTUAL DIMENSION THAT SAYS IT CANNOT EXCEED THIS HEIGHT.
NOW WITH THAT BEING SAID, IF WE AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO USE THE MIDPOINT OF WHATEVER STRUCTURE, THEN YOU COULD GAIN, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF FEET DEPENDING ON THE, THE ROOF PITCH AND THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING AND THAT KIND OF THING.
SO THERE, THERE'S, UH, THERE ARE SOME, UH, UM, SOME, UH, UH, SYMBIOTIC IF YOU WILL, UH, UM, EFFECTS BETWEEN THE THESE TWO, UH, THESE TWO, UM, ASPECTS.
THE OTHER YEAR THERE WAS A, A CASE BEFORE THE BZA AND IT WAS A BUILDING IN TEMPERANCE BILL, AND THEY WANTED TO, THEY WERE CONSIDERING BUILDING OR ASSEMBLING ROCKETS THERE, AND THEY NEEDED TO GO UP TO 50 FEET AND WE'RE GONNA ELEVATE THE BUILDING.
AND, UH, AND WE GRANTED A VARIANCE AT THAT TIME FOR THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT EVER HAPPENED.
SO SHOULD WE RECONSIDER THE HEIGHT AND AG TO A DIFFERENT HEIGHT THAN 12 FOOT? I'VE WRITTEN THAT NOTE DOWN AND WE'LL CONSIDER THE, UH, WE'LL, WE'LL CONSIDER THE RAMIFICATIONS OF, OF INCREASING THAT TO SOMETHING HIGHER THAN 12 FEET.
THE REASON, AGAIN, WHY 12 FEET IS IN THERE IS BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY IN THERE.
SO WE'RE JUST CARRYING THAT THROUGH.
WHAT WE WANT IS 13 FEET, SIX INCHES.
SO THE 12 FEET IS ALREADY IN THERE.
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE IS THE ONE STORY, OUR BUILDING WOULD HAVE TO BE TALLER THAN WE HAVE TO BE TOLD.
[00:30:01]
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? OH, OKAY.AND CAMPERS WITH AIR CONDITIONING UNITS ON IT AND SO FORTH AND GET INTO THAT.
SO WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS ONE THAT YOU, UM, WANTED TO MENTION OR WANTED US TO COME BACK FOR? THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE BEFORE WE MOVE ON? ALRIGHT, SO WE ARE MOVING ON TO DEFINITION AND METHOD OF CALCULATING SIGN AREA.
AGAIN, THIS RESOLUTION CAME DOWN FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT THEIR JANUARY 15TH MEETING.
UM, THE CURRENT ORDINANCE DOES NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE LARGER, UM, INDUSTRIAL BUS, UH, BUILDINGS, AND ALSO FOR PROPERTIES THAT HAVE MORE THAN ONE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING.
SO SOME OF THESE SITES HAVE MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON THERE.
AND IF THE MAX LIMIT IS FOUR SIGNS FOR ONE BUILDING, THEN WHAT DOES THE OTHER SIGN THE OTHER BUILDING DO? SO WHAT WE WANNA DO IS MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SIGN LIMITATION.
UH, WE BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD BE BASED ON BUILDING SIZE, LOT SIZE, THE NUMBER OF STRUCTURES ON SITE AS WELL.
AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO ADOPT A STANDARDIZED APPROACH TO CALCULATING THE SIGN AREA.
SO RIGHT NOW, WELL THIS WE HAVE HERE, UM, WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN OUR ORDINANCE AND THE CHALLENGES THAT THIS IS CREATING FOR US.
SO RIGHT NOW THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SIGNS IS FOUR.
BUT AGAIN, THIS DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR MULTISTRUCTURED PROPERTIES.
THE TOTAL AREA RIGHT NOW IS 160 SQUARE FEET, BUT THAT IS INADEQUATE FOR THE LARGER BUILDINGS.
UM, IF THEY CAN ONLY HAVE 160 SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE AND THAT HAS TO SPAN OVER FOUR SIGNS, MOST OF THESE, UH, STRUCTURES WOULD, THAT WOULD ONLY BE ONE SIGN FOR THEM.
RIGHT NOW, THE CALCULATION METHOD IS LENGTH TIMES WIDTH, AND THAT ALSO INCLUDES AVOIDED AREAS, WHICH WOULD BE WINDOWS, DOORS, THAT TYPE, BUT INCLUDING THAT INCREASES THE SIGN AREA, WHICH MEANS THAT WOULD DECREASE HOW LARGE THEIR SIGN COULD BE.
AND RIGHT NOW THERE IS NO METHOD FOR, UM, CALCULATING SIGN AREA PER THE STRUCTURE.
AND RIGHT NOW THERE'S ALSO NO FLEXIBILITY IN OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE FOR THESE LARGER INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TO GET LARGER SIGNAGE.
SO THEN STAFF IS UNABLE TO ACCOMMODATE.
UM, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE SEEN AT LAST MONTH'S MEETING.
THESE ARE OUR PROPOSED, UH, SIGN AREA CALCULATION METHODS.
UM, WE BELIEVE THAT THE MAXIMUM SIGN AREA SHOULD BE DETERMINED AS 10% OF THE WALL ELEVATION, BUT IT MUST NOT EXCEED THE SIGNS CANNOT EXCEED THE ROOF LINE OF THE BUILDING.
VOIDED AREAS, WHICH I MENTIONED FROM THE LAST SLIDE, INCLUDES WINDOWS, DOORS, AND BAYS THAT WILL NOT BE SUBTRACTED FROM THE TOTAL WALL ELEVATION.
ALSO, UM, THE SIGN AREA MUST BE CALCULATED BY USING BASIC GEOMETRIC SHAPES, AND THAT WILL INCLUDE EXCLUDE SUPPORTING STRUCTURES, BA BRACING IN THE DECORATIVE WALLS.
UM, I DO HAVE SOME VISUALS FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN WHAT SOME OF THOSE ARE AS WELL.
AND WE WANT TO CHANGE THE MAX FROM BEING FOUR SIGNS FOR ONE BUILDING ON A PARCEL TO BEING FOUR SIGNS PER BUILDING ON A PARCEL.
SO IF THE, UM, PARCEL IS BIG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE THREE OR FOUR BUILDINGS, EACH OF THOSE BUILDINGS SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE FOUR SIGNS.
SO JUST TO GO IN, UM, DESCRIBE THE SHAPES AND, UM, THEIR FORMULAS FOR REC TO LINEAR, THE LENGTH TIMES WIDTH CIRCLE A EQUALS PI OR SQUARE TRIANGULAR A EQUALS ONE HALF TIMES THE BASE HEIGHT.
AND FOR THE IRREGULAR IRREGULARLY SHAPED, UM, SIGNS THAT WE MAY GET COMING IN, THEY COULD USE A COMBINATION OF THOSE GEOMETRIC SHAPES.
AND THE SAME WOULD BE DONE FOR MULTI MULTIPLE COMPONENT SIGNS.
SO JUST TO GIVE SOME VISUALS OF THOSE, THESE ARE THE SHAPES THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO USE.
AND THEN FOR, UM, THE IRREGULAR SHAPE AND FOR THE MULTI-COMPONENT, IT WOULD STILL BE ONE OF THESE SHAPES GOING AROUND EACH ELEMENT, THE WHOLE SIGN
[00:35:01]
TOGETHER.AND I DID SHOW YOU THIS LAST MONTH, BUT JUST TO GO OVER THAT AGAIN WITH THE, UM, SHAPE OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE, THE RECTANGLE, SQUARE CIRCLE OR TRIANGLE, WHAT WE ARE CURRENTLY DOING NOW WOULD BE ONE SHAPE AROUND THE WHOLE SIGN, WHICH HERE WE HAVE SOME VOIDED AND DEAD SPACE WITH INCREASE, WHICH INCREASES THE SIGN AREA.
WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS TO DO ONE OF THOSE BASIC SHAPES TO FIT AS TIGHTLY AROUND THOSE SIGNS AS POSSIBLE TO GET RID OF THAT VOIDED AND DEAD SPACE TO ALLOW SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE.
AND THIS IS JUST THE IMAGE OF BOTH OF THOSE TOGETHER.
SO THE YELLOW PORTION, THAT IS WHAT NOW THIS APPLICANT IS SAVING ON SPACE AND JUST THE VISUAL.
SO CURRENTLY, NO MATTER WHAT SIZE THE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING IS, THEY CAN ONLY GO TO A MAX OF 160 SQUARE FEET.
SO WHEN PROPORTION, THIS SMALLER BUILDING, 160 SQUARE FEET MAY BE FINE.
BUT FOR THIS LARGER BUILDING, THE PROPORTION IS JUST NOT, IT'S JUST NOT ADEQUATE.
AND THEN HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF TWO INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS WHERE, UM, THE SIGNAGES IN PROPORTION TO THE BUILDING SIZE AND MENTIONED A COUPLE SLIDES AGO WAS DECORATIVE WALLS.
SO THIS IS A LIVE EXAMPLE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE NOW CAPTIVE CODE, I DO BELIEVE THERE ARE A COUPLE OTHER, UM, NEWER SUBDIVISIONS IN THE COUNTY WHO HAVE DECORATIVE WALLS AS WELL.
I BELIEVE THE ONE IN GARTHA HAS ON THE HIGHWAY HAS ONE OF THESE TWO OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO IT.
SO FOR SIGNS LIKE THIS, THE ONLY PORTION THAT WOULD BE CALCULATED AS SIGN AREA IS THE ACTUAL CAPTAIN'S COVE.
WE WOULD NOT CALCULATE THIS WHOLE STRUCTURE AS BEING SIGNAGE.
SO SOME BENEFITS OF MAKING THESE CHANGES.
WE'LL HAVE SCALABLE AND PROPORTIONAL SIGNAGE, CONSISTENCY, REDUCED EXCEPTIONS, FAIR APPLICATION PROCESSES, AND ENDING OF THE ONE SIZE FITS ALL, WHICH GOES BACK TO THE IMAGE OF THE LARGER BUILDING, HAVING TO HAVE THAT SAME 160 SQUARE FEET OF SIGN AREA AS A SMALLER BUILDING, WHICH ISN'T PROPORTIONATE SOME OTHER ZONING ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS.
UM, SECTION 1 0 6, 1 35 SIGN REGULATIONS, SIGN REGULATIONS IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
I SHALL CONFORM TO ARTICLE EIGHT OF THIS CHAPTER.
SO IF YOU WERE TO GO TO CODE RIGHT NOW, YOU GO TO SECTION 1 0 6, 1 35, IT'S GOING TO REFER YOU TO ANOTHER SECTION IN THE CODE.
THERE IS, THERE IS NO GUIDANCE THERE AT ALL.
SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS WHEN SOMEONE IS GOING INTO THE ORDINANCE, THEY'RE GOING TO THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, WE WANNA HAVE LANGUAGE THERE FOR SOMEONE TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT THEY ARE AND ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO VERSUS BEING TOLD NOW CLICK HERE AND IT'S GONNA TAKE YOU TO ANOTHER SECTION AND STILL DOESN'T GIVE YOU THE NECESSARY GUIDANCE.
UM, SIGN AREA IS CURRENTLY INTERPRETED AS LAND TIMES WIDTH BY OUR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR BEFORE HIM AS WELL.
BUT WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO ALLOW MORE FLEXIBILITY, WHICH USING, UM, THE FOUR BASIC GEOMETRIC SHAPES WILL ALLOW THAT FLEXIBILITY.
SO STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED A METHOD THAT INCLUDES ONLY INCLUDING THE FUNCTIONAL PORTION OF THE SIGN, NOT INCLUDING THE DEAD VOIDED SPACE.
AND I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ON THAT.
IS THERE ANY ROOM FOR PUBLIC INPUT ON THESE SIGNS? UH, REASON WHAT COMES TO MIND IS A GIANT RONALD MCDONALD AND IF YOU LIVED DOWN THE STREET OR A FEW HOUSES AWAY, DO YOU REALLY WANT TO LOOK AT IT? YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANY, WELL, I MEAN, EVENTUALLY WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS AND AT THAT TIME, IF THERE'S ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WANTS TO COME IN AND VOICE THEIR CONCERNS, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT
[00:40:01]
AT THAT TIME.NO, I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE WAS ANY ROOM FOR, YOU MEAN WITH ALL WITH INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS? I MEAN, THERE IS POSSIBLE A POSSIBILITY OF SOME REALLY TASTELESS SIGNS, YOU KNOW, AND SO, YOU KNOW, YOU DO THAT NOT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD KIND OF THING.
SO I WAS, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE WAS ANYTHING FOR PUBLIC INPUT ON THAT, UH, WITHOUT GETTING INTO WHAT'S GOOD TASTE FOR YOU MAY NOT BE FOR ME, BUT RIGHT.
WE, WE CANNOT LEGISLATE AESTHETICS, UNFORTUNATELY.
I'M JUST THINKING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PUBLIC INPUT ON NOISE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH WE DID REMEMBER ON THE, THE ARGUMENTS WITH THAT BATTERY PLANT ON 1 75, THE NOISE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND THERE.
IF A, IF, IF AN APPLICATION REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARINGS, THEN THAT, THEN THAT TYPE OF CASE YEAH.
IF SOMEONE COMES IN AND THEY COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE, THEY COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE, WHAT WE CAN REGULATE SIZE, LOCATION, AND TIMING.
WE CANNOT REGULATE, I MEAN, WE COULD TRY TO REGULATE AESTHETICS.
AND, AND THEN WE ALSO CANNOT REGULATE THE CONTENT.
SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FIRST, UM, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, UM, FIRST AMENDMENT YEAH.
UH, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AT THAT POINT.
BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS WE'RE, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO, UH, CLARIFY CERTAIN REGULATIONS WITH REGARDS TO TIMING, PLACE AND, UH, AND, UH, AND SIZE.
IT'S JUST POPPED INTO MY HEAD, YOU KNOW, I KEEP SEEING A GIANT PROBLEM.
THERE ARE CERTAIN SIGNS THAT, UH, AND YOU KNOW, IF, IF WE'RE SETTING THEM, IF WE'RE SETTING, AND THIS IS JUST FOR THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, BUT IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE SETTING, UH, IF, IF WE'RE, WE ARE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE LARGER SIGNS, JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU KNOW, WE ARE TRYING TO, WE ARE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE LARGER SIGNS.
WE HAVE RECEIVED SIGN APPLICATIONS THAT WE CANNOT PROCESS.
WE CANNOT, WE CAN'T APPROVE BECAUSE THEY ABSOLUTELY EXCEED BY A GREAT DEAL WHAT OUR MAXIMUM SIGN AREA IS, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, GETTING BACK TO, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE REVIEWING AND ADJUDICATING ON, ON AESTHETICS.
YOU KNOW, WHAT COMES TO MIND? THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE RIDDEN DOWN I 95 SOUTH OF THE BORDER.
THE GIANT, THE GIANT PEDRO WITH THE MEXICAN HIGH AND SO FORTH, YOU KNOW, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE IN NORTH CAROLINA THAT WAS SOUTH OR SOUTH, SOUTH CAROLINA OR GEORGIA.
BUT HERE IN MACK, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO A BILLBOARD, THEY STILL WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
AN OFF-PREMISES SIGN WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
I, AND, AND WHAT I WILL SAY ON THAT IS WE'RE RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF ANY, YOU KNOW, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF ANY SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR BILLBOARDS.
IT IS OUR CONTENTION THAT THERE ARE PLENTY ENOUGH BILLBOARDS IN MACK AND THAT THE BILLBOARDS THAT WE DO HAVE ARE NOT BEING PROPERLY MAINTAINED.
SO WHY ARE, WHY WOULD WE, WHY WOULD WE WANT ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE? HOWEVER, IT'S THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ULTIMATE DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S APPROVED.
THESE SIGNS THAT WE'VE SEEN HERE ARE ONLY SIGNS SECURED FLAT TO THE SURFACE.
NOT SIGNS THAT ARE PERPENDICULAR TO THE SURFACE.
THESE ARE, THESE ARE BUILDING MOUNTED SIGNS THAT WOULD, THAT THE WALL THAT THEY'RE ATTACHED TO WOULD HAVE TO BE ABLE TO, TO, UH, UH, STRUCTURALLY SUPPORT THAT SIGN.
A, A PROJECTING SIGN, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE, UH, IN THE, IN THE, IN THE PERPENDICULAR EXAMPLE, THAT'S CALLED A PROJECTING SIGN.
YOU WOULD NORMALLY FIND THOSE IN, IN A, IN A DOWNTOWN SETTING OR MAYBE EVEN A SHOPPING CENTER SETTING, BUT IN AN INDUSTRIAL SETTING MM-HMM
YOU REALLY DON'T SEE THOSE AT ALL.
BUT THE DIFFERENCE, YOU KNOW, A PROJECTING SIGN CERTAINLY CAN BE A BUILDING MOUNTED SIGN, BUT YOU, YOU, YOU MADE A GOOD OBSERVATION, UH, THAT, UH, SIGNS CAN EITHER BE MOUNTED FLAT ON THE WALL OR THEY CAN PROJECT OUT ON, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY ON A STEM OR A POLE OR, OR, UH, OR SOME SORT OF SUPPORT STRUCTURE AND THEY HANG
[00:45:01]
DOWN.THEY COULD BE FABRIC, THEY COULD BE ANY OTHER MATERIAL THAT WOULD, UH, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT, UH, STRUCTURE COULD SUPPORT.
BUT, UM, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE TOO MANY, TOO MANY PLACES WHERE A PROJECTING SIGN WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, AS IN A DOWNTOWN AREA.
YOU SEE PROJECTING SIGNS IN DOWNTOWN IN C**K OR CAPE CHARLES OR, OR SHAKE TAKE ALL THE TIME.
UH, JUST COMMENT ON THE, UH, OFF PREMISES SIDE.
DO WE NOT HAVE SOME UNFINISHED BUSINESS WITH OFF, OFF OFFSITE SIGNS, OR HAVE WE CONCLUDED OUR REVIEW OF THAT PROCESS? THAT WAS DURING RICH MORRIS'S, UM, YEAH.
STARTED BEFORE THEN TIME WE, WE STARTED A SIGN, UM, REVIEW, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE FINISHED IT.
I DON'T THINK IT GOT FINISHED BECAUSE THE, THAT MIGHT HAVE GOT LOST IN THE TRANSITION.
THE QUESTION WAS, WHEN PEOPLE WERE APPLYING FOR SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE, THE WORDAGE WAS UNCLEAR AS TO IF YOU HAD A FOUR BY EIGHT SIGN, DID IT INCLUDE BOTH SIDES? WAS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE A CALCULATION OF BOTH SIDES? TYPICALLY YOU JUST CALCULATE THAT OFF OF ONE SIGN.
UH, THAT'S HOW I'VE ALWAYS SEEN IT.
I KNOW, I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE KIND OF TOUGH TO, TO, UH, TO DOUBLE THAT.
SO IF YOU'VE GOT A FOUR BY EIGHT SIGN AND ONE SIDE IS 32 SQUARE FEET TO CALL THAT A 64 SQUARE FOOT SIGN, I, I DON'T SEE THAT.
I, WHERE, AND WHERE I HAVE USUALLY SEEN THAT IS IN, IN SEVERAL DEFINITIONS THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND SEVERAL ZONING ORDINANCES, THAT'S USUALLY JUST ONE SIDE.
BUT I THINK WHAT, BUT THAT ALSO A, A CORRECTION WOULD'VE BEEN THAT FOR, FOR A SIGN IT WOULD BE, SHALL WE SAY, 64 SQUARE FEET PER SIDE, NOT TO EXCEED THAT PER SIDE.
I HAVE ALSO SEEN WHERE IF THERE IS A TWO-SIDED SIGN AND, AND YOU ARE DOING THIS WITH YOUR HANDS AND, AND, AND THAT, AND THAT BROUGHT A, UH, THAT, THAT BROUGHT A, UM, A POINT IS THAT IF, IF THE SIGN, IF THE TWO SIGN FACES ARE PAST A CERTAIN ANGLE, SO YOU KNOW, ONE SIGN, YOU KNOW, ONE SIDE, THE OTHER SIDE JUST LIKE A PIECE OF PAPER OR CARDBOARD OR WHATEVER.
BUT THEN IF THEY, IF YOU HAVE THOSE TWO SIGNS THAT ARE STARTING TO, TO ANGLE OUT, THEN WE COULD REASONABLY PUT IN A, UH, UM, A, UH, UH, A PROVISION THAT SAYS IF IT'S PAST A CERTAIN ANGLE, THEN YOU WILL BE, THEN THAT WILL BE COUNTED AS 32 AND 32 A TOTAL OF 64.
AND, AND WE CAN CERTAINLY DO SOME, SOME, UH, RESEARCH ON WHAT, WHAT OTHER LOCALITIES SAY THAT ANGLE IS, UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME IDEAS AS TO WHAT THAT ANGLE SHOULD BE.
I, I THINK IT, BUT WE HAD SOME ISSUES WITH SOME SIGN APPLICATIONS REGARDING THAT AND QUESTION, AND THERE WAS, UH, INITIATED REVIEW THAT I THINK DID COME TO FRUITION.
WELL, THERE WAS A MOVE AFOOT TO GET TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE, REMOVE BILLBOARDS FROM THE EASTERN SHORE.
THERE WAS, THERE, THERE'S A CONTINGENT THERE THAT WANTS THAT TO HAPPEN.
THERE IS A PORTION OF THE CITIZENRY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALL BILLBOARDS REMOVED AND NO MORE, AND, AND CERTAINLY NO MORE BILLBOARDS BE BUILT AT ALL.
THERE'S A CERTAIN CONTINGENT CITIZEN BILLBOARDS CAN ONLY GO UP IN SOMETHING IN FOR SOME BUSINESS.
THERE'S A WHOLE CONTINGENT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE TALKED TO ME ABOUT IT SAYING THAT THAT CAME UP, YOU KNOW, ALL THOSE BILLBOARDS MET SOUTH OF MAXVILLE, THAT'S OWN BUSINESS.
WELL, I'VE GOT, WHAT, 210 ACRES? 210 FEET OR THREE, I CAN'T REMEMBER HOW MANY FEET RIGHT ON SHANK DIG ROAD WHERE I COULD PUT BILLBOARDS IF, BUT YEAH.
BUT THAT, THERE'S, THERE'S A WHOLE CONTINGENT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE TALKED TO ME THAT DON'T, WOULD LIKE TO A, REMOVE ALL BILLBOARDS AND B, HAVE NO MORE BILLBOARDS BILL BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT A LOT OF 'EM ARE JUNKY MM-HMM
WHICH IS, I WOULD SAY THAT THE COUNTY CERTAINLY IS WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO TELL A BILLBOARD OWNER TO FIX IT, WHICH THEY HAVEN'T DONE.
SO, ESPECIALLY IN A CAUSE WAY.
WELL, I MEAN, THE COUNTY HAS THE ABILITY TO FORCE A PERSON TO FIX THEIR STUFF.
WHAT, WHAT, WHAT I WILL SAY ABOUT THE SIGNED ORDINANCE IN GENERAL IS THAT IT NEEDS A LOT OF WORK.
[00:50:01]
OUTDATED.A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE BRINGING TO YOU ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS IS TO TRY TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS, TRY TO INCLUDE SOME FLEXIBILITY WHERE THE STAFF SEES FLEXIBILITY WOULD BE A, A PRO OR A, OR, OR A DESIRABLE THING.
BUT WITH REGARDS TO THE SIGNAGE, UM, THE, THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, MIKE MASON AND I HAVE TALKED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS ABOUT THE SIGN ORDINANCE, AND WE BOTH RECOGNIZE THAT THE SIGN ORDINANCE IS DEFICIENT AS AN ENTIRE, AS AN ENTIRE SECTION OF THE, OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
AND THAT'S THE PLAN WHEN WE DO A DIAGNOSTIC OF THE MM-HMM
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OVERALL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, ANOTHER COMMENT ON THE QUESTION THAT MR. SPARKMAN HAD, UM, BEING THAT WE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WITH THESE LARGER SIGNS, MOST OF THESE WOULD NOT BE IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE THEY WOULD OBSTRUCT ANYONE'S VIEW.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO, THANK YOU.
SO NOTHING YOU WANT ME TO LOOK INTO FOR YOU,
WHEN, IF, IF THEY ARE REVISED, IF EVERYONE THAT CURRENTLY HAVE SIGNS THAT MAY NOT BE AT CODE OR THEY'RE FALLING DOWN, WOULD THEY BE INFORMED THAT THEY NEED TO, IF, IF THE SIGN, SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER A SIGN CONFORMS OR IS, OR IS NON-CONFORMING TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THERE'S A SECTION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ADDRESSES NONCONFORMITIES, WHETHER THAT BE NONCONFORMING, LOT NON-CONFORMING, WHATEVER.
IF IT, IF IT WAS LEGALLY, IF IT WAS LEGALLY APPROVED IN THE PAST, BUT WE CHANGE THE REGULATION AND THAT MAKES IT NON-CONFORMING, THAT SIGN OR THAT HOUSE OR THAT WHATEVER IS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE, WE WOULDN'T GO BACK AND SAY, OKAY, WELL YOU'VE GOTTA CHANGE THE SIGN OF YOUR, YOU'VE GOTTA CHANGE THE, THE, THE SIZE OF YOUR SIGN.
UM, THERE IS A, THERE IS A PROCESS AND THERE IS A, A, A CODE SECTION OR A CHAPTER THAT IS, UH, THAT PERTAINS TO THE SITUATION THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
NONCONFORMITIES HAPPEN EVERY DAY.
IF THEY WERE, IF THEY WERE LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IN THE PAST, MAINTENANCE IS WHAT, RIGHT.
RIGHT, BECAUSE THERE, THERE WAS ONE IN LEE CHURCH, CHURCH THAT FELL.
AND I THINK IT WAS LIKE A SCALE, WIND STONE, MAYBE RAIN OR SOMETHING, AND IT ACTUALLY FELL.
UM, SO, AND US BEING INSPECTED OR IN, IN THAT INSTANCE, THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DAMAGE THAT WE WOULD ACCEPT TO ALLOW THEM TO REPAIR THAT SIGN AS IT WAS BEFORE.
IF THAT VALUE OF THE, IF THE, IF THE VALUE OF THE DAMAGE EXCEEDS 50%, THEY'VE GOTTA TAKE THE SIGN DOWN.
SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON YOUR SIGN? WE'LL COME BACK WITH SOME, NOT AT THIS TIME.
WE'LL MOVE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING YOU WANT BRIEF.
I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE, UH, FOR THE, FOR PULLING THE TRIGGER REALLY QUICKLY ON THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, BECAUSE AFTER I DID THAT, UM, UH, IT WAS, I WAS INFORMED BY LEGAL COUNSEL THAT THERE WERE SOME THINGS COMING DOWN FROM STATE, UH, FROM THE STATE, UH, LEGISLATURE THAT WERE NOT EXPECTED TO PASS THAT ACTUALLY DID.
SO AT THE, AT THE CHAIR'S REQUEST, I WILL NOT BE PROVIDING ANY BRIEFINGS TONIGHT.
BUT BECAUSE WE DID ADVERTISE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, I I, IT'S NECESSARY TO AT LEAST OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN DO THE SAME THING FOR, FOR BOTH ITEMS. BUT AGAIN, I SINCERELY APOLOGIZE FOR, UH, FOR THE, UH, FOR THE FALSE START HERE.
UH, WE WILL COME BACK WITH TO YOU NEXT MONTH.
I'M NOT REQUESTING ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING IN, IN MAY, BUT WE'RE GOING TO, UH, WE'RE GOING TO, UH, UH, SLOW DOWN JUST A TICK AND JUST GET IT RIGHT.
WE'RE GONNA BRING THAT LANGUAGE TO YOU NEXT MONTH.
SO WE DO HAVE TO OPEN IT TO CANCEL IT.
YOU WOULD JUST OPEN IT AND CLOSE IT.
I MEAN, HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THERE'S NOBODY HERE, NO ONE HAS SIGNED UP.
BUT IF YOU WOULD, MA'AM, JUST OFFICIALLY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AS NORMAL, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN WE'LL DO THAT FOR THE, UH,
[00:55:01]
FOR THE NEXT ITEM AS WELL.SO WHEN IT COMES BACK UP, WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING.
SO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CHAPTER 78 SUBDIVISION AND CHAPTER 1 0 6 ZONING RECOR REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISIONS.
NOBODY HAS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
WE HAVE NOBODY SIGNED UP AND NO PRESENTATION.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CHAPTER 1 0 6 ZONING REGARDING THE PERIODS OF VALIDITY FOR CERTAIN APPROVALS.
I WILL SAY THAT WE DID PUT A, A, UM, A, AN EXHIBIT IN YOUR PACKETS TO TRY TO VISUALLY EXPLAIN THE WHOLE TIMING OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THE NOTICES.
BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, UM, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S A NEW PIECE OF INFORMATION.
BUT, UH, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GONNA PROVIDE ANY OTHER BRIEFING BESIDES, UH, BESIDES WHAT, UH, YOU'VE JUST HEARD.
SO, UH, THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF REMARKS ON THIS, AND I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CLOSE PUBLIC, UM, COMMENT AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER MATTERS? WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER MATTERS.
DOES THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY OTHER MATTERS OR QUESTIONS THEY WANNA ASK STAFF? HOW'S THE HIRING GOING? WE'RE HAVING TO GET A LITTLE CREATIVE.
UM, IN TERMS OF, UH, WHAT THE, IN TERMS OF OUR APPROACH THE HIRING IS, UH, IS TOUCH AND GO AS IT'S ALWAYS BEEN FOR US HERE ON THE EASTERN SHORE FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT, WE CURRENTLY HAVE FIVE VACANCIES.
WE HAVE, UM, WE HAVE TWO BUILDING INSPECTOR POSITIONS OPEN.
WE HAVE A PLANNER POSITION OPEN.
WE HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER POSITION OPEN.
AND THEN FINALLY WE HAVE A DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS POSITION OPEN.
SO WE ARE, UH, WE ARE FINE FOR NOW.
WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE MAKING IT WORK WITH, UH, WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, CHEWING GUM AND BAILING WIRE
BUT, UM, UH, WHAT I WILL SAY IS THAT THE HR DEPARTMENT WILL BE BRINGING ON A, AN ASSISTANT, UH, OR A DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HR.
SO WE HOPE THAT THAT WILL INCREASE HRS BANDWIDTH TO PUT SOME ADDITIONAL, UH, SOME ADDITIONAL ADS OUT THERE AND THAT KIND OF THING.
UM, ONE OF THE CREATIVE APPROACHES THAT WE WANT TO TRY TO TAKE IS TO, UH, IS TO RECRUIT DIRECTLY, MAYBE IDENTIFY SOME INDIVIDUALS AND ASK 'EM IF THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED, WHETHER THEY'RE HERE ON THE SHORE OR ACROSS THE BAY.
BUT, UM, THAT APPROACH HAS, HAS WORKED IN CERTAIN INSTANCES FOR US.
JUST, UH, JUST ORGANIZATION WIDE.
NOT FOR, FOR, FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT, BUT ORGANIZATION WIDE.
CAN MOVE TO SUBDIVISION AGENT REPORT.
WE HAVE NO OTHER MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS IN PROCESS RIGHT NOW.
UM, THE, THE COASTAL SQUARE IN RESIDENCES APPLICATION, THEY HAVE SUBMITTED THEIR ENGINEER DRAWINGS.
WE ARE CURRENTLY REVIEWING THOSE AND, UH, THERE IS NOTHING TO REPORT YET.
ON THAT LAST MONTH WAS THE LAST PUBLIC ACTION THAT WOULD'VE BEEN REQUIRED FOR THAT CASE.
THE REST OF THE REVIEW WAS GOING TO BE ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE.
UH, BUT BESIDES THAT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER MAJOR, UH, SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS REQUIRING THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS REVEAL.
DO, UM, COASTAL SQUARES, DO THEY COME BACK WITH, UH, OTHER PHASES THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE, UM, BUILDINGS AND PLOTS FOR? OR IS THAT THROUGH YOU? THAT WOULD STILL BE THROUGH US.
SO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, AS I LIKE TO SAY, KIND OF SETS THE TABLE FOR THE STAFF TO DO THE REST OF THE REVIEW.
AND OF COURSE, IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL SECTIONS THAT THEY SUBMIT.
SO IF THEY'RE APPROVED FOR, UM, LET'S TAKE FOR EXAMPLE, THE 130 LOTS THAT WERE, THAT WAS PROPOSED LAST MONTH, AND THEY COME IN AND THEY SAY, HEY, WE JUST WANNA DO 25 OF THOSE LOTS, THEN THEY'RE GONNA SUBMIT TO US A PLAT JUST FOR THOSE 25 LOTS.
WE MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS THE WAY THAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE PER THE CONDITIONS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THE PROFFERS OF THE REZONING CASE, AS WELL AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
UH, WE DON'T WANT TO GET CAUGHT IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY ARE NOT COMPLYING WITH ANY OF THAT.
SO THAT IS THE, UH, THAT WOULD BE THE BASIC PROCESS THERE.
AND THEN THEY WOULD COME IN FOR FUTURE SECTIONS, AND WE WOULD DO THE SAME THING FOR THAT.
FOR, FOR THOSE FUTURE SECTIONS.
FOR INFORMATION FOR ME, WHAT'S THE PROCESS FOR, UH, REZONING? IS IT
[01:00:01]
ONLY, UH, ALLOW FROM A APPLICANT OR DOES THE COUNTY HAVE A MEANS OF REZONING PROPERLY OR WITHOUT, IF WE'RE, UH, IF, AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION HERE, BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A, UM, YOU KNOW, A COUNTYWIDE REZONING TO, TO, UH, YOU KNOW, TO MAYBE CHANGE THE, TO, TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES OR TO MAKE IT LOOK OR, OR TO MAKE IT, UH, UM, AGREE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD DO COUNTYWIDE.BUT WE CAN'T SELECT AN INDIVIDUAL PIECE OF PROPERTY AND REZONE THAT OURSELVES UNLESS IT IS OUR PROPERTY.
BUT, UM, BUT, UH, UH, APPLICANTS WOULD HAVE TO COME IN INDIVIDUALLY FOR THEIR OWN, UH, ON THEIR OWN TO REZONE THEIR PROPERTY.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? NO.
I JUST, JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY HOW THAT PROCESS WORKED.
SO, BACK A FEW YEARS AGO, UH, WE WERE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT PLACES OF WHAT'S ON THE GROUND AND LOOKING AT THE ZONING.
AND WE WERE GOING THROUGH, AND I THINK WE WERE REACHING OUT TO THE LAND OWNERS AND REZONING MM-HMM
WE WERE REZONING LIKE BATESVILLE WHERE THEY WERE ZONED VILLE.
SOMEWHERE THEY WERE ZONED LIKE AG, WHICH WERE STUCKEY'S YEAH.
AND WE WERE REZONING THEIR PROPERTY AS A WHOLE, LIKE DIFFERENT PLACES ALONG NELSONS.
AND IT WAS TI TIDYING IT UP A LITTLE BIT.
IN, IN, IN THAT INSTANCE, WE COULD REZONE PROPERTY, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S MORE OF A, OF AN AREA WIDE OR A VICINITY WIDE EFFORT.
BUT WE WOULDN'T GO IN AND, AND, AND JUST DO IT FOR ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY.
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE IN A COMPREHENSIVE OR IN A LARGER CONTEXT.
WELL, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I THINK HAS THE LANGUAGE ON, UH, UH, CONFORMITY, I BELIEVE IS THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE IT, BECAUSE, UH, THERE WAS AN EXCEPTION WHERE AT THE TIME, UH, THERE WAS A PROPOSAL TO BUILD A CELL TOWER NEAR PUNTE, AND AT THAT TIME, THE COUNTY COULD, YOU COULD ONLY BUILD A CELL TOWER IN A LOCATION ZONE BUSINESS.
AND SO WE HAD TO GO ADVERSE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ZONE A, A SMALL AREA OF BUSINESS TO GET A CELL TOWER DONE.
AND I THINK I REMEMBER SOMETHING ABOUT THE, THE SUPERVISORS REVISITED THAT AND CHAIN AND REVERSED THAT IN THE ORDINANCE.
SO YOU CAN PUT, THEY NEVER BUILT THAT TOWER IN PTE.
THEY PAID THE, UH, I'M, I'M, HE'S PASSED AWAY NOW, BUT YEAH.
BUT THERE WERE SEVERAL, THEY NEVER BUILT IT PROPOSALS FOR TOWERS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN DONE.
BUT, BUT ANYHOW, THAT, AND THAT WAS CONTRARY TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO DO BECAUSE IT WAS, YOU KNOW, FIVE OR 10 ACRES ZONED BUSINESS IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.
BUT WE DID IT TO FACILITATE THE CELL TOWER CONSTRUCTION.
WHAT WE GENERALLY WANT TO DO, UM, AND IN THE DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT, I'M GONNA GET INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE STATUS OF THAT RFP.
UH, THE, WHAT, WHAT WE WOULD TRY TO DO JUST GENERALLY IS, YOU KNOW, WE WANT THE ZONING TO MATCH WHAT'S ON THE GROUND, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO, WE ALSO WANT THE ZONING TO, TO, UH, TO MATCH WHAT'S IN THE, UH, UH, WHAT'S ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.
SO THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD PUT SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE ZONING, WITH THE ZONING MAP.
UH, AND WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY DO THAT AS A GROUP WHEN WE DO THE, UH, WHEN WE DO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UH, REVISION OR THE REVIEW.
BUT THERE, THERE ARE SEVERAL INSTANCES THAT WE'VE JUST NOTICED THROUGHOUT WHERE, UH, WHERE THE ZONING AND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DON'T QUITE, UH, DON'T QUITE AGREE.
IT'S NOT A DEAL BREAKER BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN INSTANCES WHERE THAT MIGHT BE, UM, WHERE THAT MIGHT BE PROBLEMATIC.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IF, IF THERE'S, UH, IT IS DONE INDIVIDUALLY BY PROPERTY VERSUS BEING DONE BY AN AREA IF IT NEEDS TO BE REZONED.
SO WHO WOULD SUBMIT THE REQUEST IF IT IS DONE BY AN AREA? IF YOU WANTED THAT DONE BY AN AREA, WHO WOULD SUBMIT THE REQUEST FOR THAT? IT COULD BE, IT COULD BE, UM, IT COULD BE A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER THAT OWNS SEVERAL CONTIGUOUS PIECES OF PROPERTY, OR IT COULD BE THE COUNTY.
I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHER INSTANCES THAT I'M NOT IMAGINING RIGHT NOW, BUT THOSE ARE THE, THOSE ARE THE TWO THAT REALLY
[01:05:01]
COME TO MIND AT THE, AT THE, AT THE FOREFRONT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, OF VICINITY OR SEVERAL PIECES OF PROPERTY.AND YES, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE CONTIGUOUS.
CAN WE GET MORE INFORMATION ON THAT? I KNOW YOU SAID YOU WERE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE COMP WHAT'S IN THE COMP PLAN, BUT CAN WE GET MORE INFORMATION AS YOU'RE WORKING THROUGH THAT? THERE'S, THERE'S GONNA BE PLENTY OF TIME FOR THAT.
UM, IF, IF I COULD JUST GO INTO THE DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT WITH REGARDS TO THE COMP PLAN.
UM, WE HAVE, WE HAVE FINALIZED THE DRAFT RFP FOR COMP PLAN CONSULTING SERVICES.
THAT HAS NOT BEEN, UM, THAT HAS NOT BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO THE PUBLIC.
WE STILL HAVE TO RUN IT THROUGH LEGAL FINANCE AND, UH, AND THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ONE MORE TIME.
I WAS WORKING ON THIS LAST NIGHT, AS A MATTER OF FACT, I WANNA TRY TO, I WANNA TRY TO FINALIZE THAT WITH THEM BY THE END OF THE WEEK, CERTAINLY BY THE END OF NEXT WEEK.
BUT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS WE WILL PROBABLY START THE WORK ON THE COMP PLAN IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.
WE'RE ALREADY HERE IN THE SECOND WEEK OF APRIL.
AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT TAKES TO, TO PUT THE RFP OUT, GET THE RESPONSES BACK, REVIEW THE RESPONSES, DECIDE WHO, WHO, THE TOP FIVE, IF, LET'S SAY THAT WE GET 10, WHO ARE THE TOP FIVE CONSULTANTS THAT WE WANT TO INTERVIEW, INTERVIEW THOSE, DO SOME NEGOTIATING AND THEN FINALIZE, THAT WOULD PROBABLY TAKE US PRETTY CLOSE TO THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
SO AGAIN, MID, UH, ALMOST MID-APRIL, WE WANT TO TRY TO GET THIS FINALIZED BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
WE HAVE $90,000 IN THE CURRENT BUDGET FOR THAT.
AND THEN WE'VE GOT $90,000 IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR'S BUDGET.
SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO IS WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO CARRY OVER THAT 90,000 TO THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR FOR A TOTAL OF 180.
AND HOPEFULLY THAT'LL BE ENOUGH TO, TO GET IT DONE.
BUT YOU'VE, UH, UH, ESPECIALLY, UH, COMMISSIONER TYLER HAS ASKED OCCASIONALLY WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE COMP PLAN REVIEW.
THAT'S THE LATEST AND GREATEST.
UM, IF YOU HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, MADAM, I MOVE THAT WE ADJOURN A SECOND.